Comment: Hey, got a couple of links for ya..

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Needs More Punch (see in situ)

Hey, got a couple of links for ya..

The first is to a U.S. Supreme Court case (Dillon V. Gloss in 1921) that specifically mentions that there were exceptions to amending the constitution. The case is not on point (as I mentioned earlier) though in regards to the 17th amendment. It is a case about the 18th (prohibition) and at what time it became active in regards to the criminal case of booze-running that was before the court.

What I find odd is that with the recent passage of the 17th just 7 years prior, none of the "scholarly" justices hit deeper on the point of the exceptions to amendment in regards to the 17th. Or brought it up after the case was settled to anyone else. Here is a link to the case in which the supreme court says there was an exception to amending the Constitution in the area of States suffrage:

http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/dillon-v-gloss-20019903

Scroll down to sections [Page 256 U.S. 368, 373] and [Page 256 U.S. 368, 374].

Here is the pertinent wording:

"An examination of article 5 discloses that it is intended to invest Congress with a wide range of power in proposing amendments. Passing a provision long since expired,8 it subjects this power to only two restrictions: one that the proposal shall have the approval of two-thirds of both houses, and the other excluding any amendment which will deprive any state, without

[Page 256 U.S. 368, 374]

its consent, of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The words "Passing a provision that has long since expired" (and spoken of in footnote 8) refers to sections of the constitution that dealt with the importation of slaves and direct taxes, and since it only held true until 1808, it had "long since expired" But, in the decision itself, it did not apply that year to the restriction on suffrage in the Senate. To the contrary, it said that restriction was still in force.

This second link is for the section of Madison's federalist essay #43 that also addresses the exceptions for amending the Constitution. I got lucky to find this portion in a standalone presentation. As I said in my earlier reply, the paper is quite lengthy and pointing directly to the section would prove difficult. Here is the link:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a5s6.html

I will add these 2 links to my article to strengthen the arguments made within it.

Thanks for spurring me on... I love to "dig" anyway and the opportunity to sharpen those skills here today was quite welcomed. I knew of the supreme court case many years ago, but finding it again was fun... The search term I used was "and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." including the quotes. I used altavista.com which IMO is one of the best for scientific type searches because it allows for very tight and specific searches.

I read all the "hits" for the first 10 pages or so and the only references that applied this last clause of article 5 to the 17th amendment were mine. Lots of patriot sites skirted on the issue, and I know of one I saw many years ago that was directly on point, but I didn't see it today.

Paul.